By in Breaking News

This Is What I Got When I Searched For Donald Trump

No, not really. I searched for Scary Clown. But aren't the two synonymous.

The Donald has done it again. Now he has alienated the entire Muslim world by declaring every Muslim not now resident in the United States a suspected terrorist who should not be allowed across our borders until every detail of their life from birth until the moment they reach our shores is documented and verified. I think Lindsey Graham had it right when he described The Donald as a, "race baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot."

How long will it take before someone reminds The Donald that one of the shooters in San Bernadino was born in the US? Will the mighty Trump then come up with a plan to identify Muslims in the United States, perhaps by requiring them to sew a green crescent moon on the shoulder of all their clothes?

| | |


Image Credit » https://pixabay.com/en/clown-mask-face-scary-grinning-238527/ by RyanMcGuire

You will need an account to comment - feel free to register or login.

Comments

Rufuszen wrote on December 8, 2015, 5:24 PM

I heard a spokeperson, on Radio 4, trying to explain what Trump wanted, they didn't seem to understand it.

CoralLevang wrote on December 8, 2015, 5:38 PM

What are we going to do when we have to make a decision to vote for The Donald, and the Hillary?

I may be figuring a way to expatriate.

WordChazer wrote on December 8, 2015, 5:54 PM

Apparently someone on the Book of Face this morn had done a Hitler vs Trump meme. So Mr C told me anyway: I was not awake enough to pay much attention at that point.

wolfgirl569 wrote on December 8, 2015, 6:02 PM

He has already said they maybe need to wear a button or something identifying themselves but not how to tell if they dont admit it

DWDavisRSL wrote on December 8, 2015, 6:14 PM

He wants a moratorium on admittance of all Muslims seeking to enter the US until our government figures out a way to vet them 100% to make sure they haven't been radicalized.

DWDavisRSL wrote on December 8, 2015, 6:15 PM

There's always the Libertarian Party candidate.

DWDavisRSL wrote on December 8, 2015, 6:17 PM

I have been encouraging my students to compare the rhetoric of Hitler in the 1930s to Trump today.

DWDavisRSL wrote on December 8, 2015, 6:20 PM

Does the man ever think about the impact or reaction of the things he says?

CoralLevang wrote on December 8, 2015, 7:12 PM

are you talking about Johnson? Can't remember his first name.

LeaPea2417 wrote on December 8, 2015, 7:19 PM

I think he makes a good point, I see where he is coming from but I don't see how it could fully be implemented. And honestly, I don't think the Republican Establishment will let him win the nomination. There are things going on in the back ground we don't know about. I guarantee, they will get who they want as the nominee which will be Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. Seriously, I think this.

DWDavisRSL wrote on December 8, 2015, 7:23 PM

I'm not sure I agree that closing our borders to all people of one certain religion is a good idea. He's playing on the fears and xenophobia of a certain frustrated group of people, much like another accomplished orator did in the 1930s.

lookatdesktop wrote on December 8, 2015, 8:38 PM

I only hope America comes to it's senses before it's too late. We don't need a Trump in the White house. Your idea of a 3rd party candidate has some degree of merit.

wolfgirl569 wrote on December 8, 2015, 11:05 PM

He only thinks of himself. Thats like he is going to deport all but still make jobs for the Hispanics. I take that as more of our jobs will be shipped out. Only way that I see he can do both of those things

morilla wrote on December 9, 2015, 1:38 AM

However much eloquence and political artfulness is lacking, his point actually is the vetting process; which is what he means by "our representatives figure this out." As I've said, I don't know what role Trump is playing in this election cycle - whether he's serious, building his brand, a shill for the Democrats, simply a rich clown with too much time on his hands, other - and I have issues with the 'spin' many of his supporters provide for him. Unfortunately, there is some truth in what he's saying.

The Obama Administration (as well as the Clinton Administration and, to a lesser degree, the Bush Administration) has/have destroyed many of our 'old school,' human-based intelligence gathering capabilities. The problem is, particularly in some of these regions, technology cannot get it done. Not 'everyone' in the World is in a database somewhere and, despite desires and attempts by various Governments to do so, we wouldn't want that to be the case. So, how do you 'properly' vet immigrants for things like radicalization, etc.? That's what he's saying they need to 'figure out.'

As I just indicated in a post, using a different example, you have to be very careful buying into the media narrative on this; even if it 'agrees,' to whatever point, with your own beliefs or take on the situation. I'm not a Trump fan (I'm not a 'fan' of anyone running this time), but I get what he's after. While I'm not completely sure HE entirely gets it either, with Obama's plans regarding Syrian refugees, with the wife in San Bernardino being allowed in on a fiance' visa, with... The point is that the U.S. cannot simply take anyone and everyone into the country. That's simple arithmetic and has nothing to do with race, religion, et al.

He's not saying to only take Christians or those of a certain class or wealth status or education or IQ, etc. He's saying that we're going to have to "figure out" how to 'properly' vet people. The problem is, given our intelligence limitations, given the inevitable political/social agendas, and so forth, I'm not sure how you could do it. Just bear in mind that it HAS BEEN done before and is CURRENTLY being done, for a variety of reasons - see http :// www . visanow . com / u - s - visitor - visa - rejections / . The only difference is that he's now adding "Muslim" to the list, which is a pretty broad brush and a term which would be exceptionally difficult to apply rationally.

Last Edited: December 9, 2015, 1:39 AM

JohnRoberts wrote on December 9, 2015, 9:49 AM

It does matter if one agrees with Trump or not. His important contribution to this campaign is railing on issues no one wants to bring up or confront. Issues that need fixing and solutions and while his ideas may be a turn off at least he has thrown them out there for discussion. Whether you like it or not, we have immigration issues and all we hear is the same old rhetoric and same old solutions proven not to work. You may dislike the messenger but someone has to bust this PC mentality.

DWDavisRSL wrote on December 9, 2015, 9:58 AM

There are ways of engendering discussion without attacking an entire religion made up of over 1 1/2 billion people worldwide, less than one tenth of one percent of whom actively support Daesh and other groups of its ilk. Trump's remarks are not for the purpose of promoting discussion, they are solely for the purpose of promoting Donald Trump. When his rhetoric encourages angry white men at public meetings to verbally attack and harangue Muslim women in attendance and armed groups to protest outside mosques, I don't think his message can be dismissed as merely seeds of discussion.

JohnRoberts wrote on December 9, 2015, 10:13 AM

Yes, but should his free speech rights be denied because it is perceived he is inciting violent acts? Am I to be condemned because I agree with some things he states. Where is the outcry when the liberals make negative comments about Christians? How many Christians in the world? I would like to politely point out Islam is an entire religion bent eliminating non-believers. It is stated verbatim in the Koran if you do not convert to Islam, then death to the infidels. Was it fair for the Catholic Religion to be condemned and vilified to this day because of the acts of pedophile priests. Tis a slippery slope these days in which PC is suppressing feelings and concerns of one side while slavishly embracing another side.

markgraham wrote on December 11, 2015, 11:07 AM

I do not know anything about Trump but some times he says some good things and sometimes he says bad things.

DWDavisRSL wrote on December 11, 2015, 1:41 PM

One of the problems I see with a moratorium on allowing Muslims to enter the country would be that the terror minded infiltrators would simply generate a cover showing they weren't Muslim. After all, there isn't a DNA test that can prove whether you're Muslim or not.

As to the vetting process, a properly trained and prepared infiltrator isn't going to up and admit he or she is a Daesh agent bent on spreading death and destruction in the US. Until we develop a working Psychic Probe, how is our government going to be able to tell who is the terrorist and who isn't? What questions will they ask that will magically identify the bad guys?

Yes, we do have a problem. But is accusing 1/5 of the world's population of being potential terrorists - and it doesn't matter if that's what The Donald meant, it only matters that the Muslim population took it that way - the way to go about solving it? I think not.

DWDavisRSL wrote on December 11, 2015, 1:47 PM

I am not suggesting that The Donald stop talking. But he is a VERY public figure and his words have more impact than most peoples, including you and me. I am simply asking that he put more thought into how he says what he wants to say. The Donald is making a deliberate choice to be offensive and rude to the largest number of people available because it gets him press and improves his poll numbers among Tea Party Republicans and far-right-wingers. The latest polls show that while 35% of likely Republican voters say they'll vote for Trump, 60% of all voters say they won't.

Don't take this as censorship, but you are an intelligent and articulate person and do not need to resort to Hannityesque tactics of debate to make your points.

morilla wrote on December 11, 2015, 11:32 PM

My response was too long for comments, so I posted a piece here - http://www.personapaper.com/article/43335-a-moratorium-on-muslim-immigration---continuing-the-discussion

It's not something we're going to 'settle' in soundbites or even a series of posts. But, it is something we, as a society, should be discussing in 'serious' terms and not simply in generalities or with invective and sarcasm/facetiousness. Short version is that you don't ask the immigrant , there are others you ask about the person looking to immigrate. He didn't 'accuse' 20% of the World's population or even 20% of Muslims. He is saying we need to figure out how to determine which ones intend or potentially intend harm. There is nothing which will be 100% successful; but, we have to do better than what we have now and if we need time to figure out how...

morilla wrote on December 11, 2015, 11:45 PM

As I've said, I and many others originally thought Trump's reasons for entering the race were to impact the discussion and move it away from political correctness to something more realistic. While he has a certain 'resonance' with the Right, he's also gaining some traction with Independents and some on the Left. As an example, see... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/december_2015/voters_like_trump_s_proposed_muslim_ban

He may be deliberately obtuse in his language on some things; but, he's been pretty straightforward with this... see https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

What you are refereincing is media/pundit 'spin' on what he's saying rather than what he's actually said.

DWDavisRSL wrote on December 12, 2015, 12:10 PM

He did infer that every Muslim is a potential terrorist and therefor all Muslims from whatever corner of the world, should be banned from entering the US until we figure out how to tell the bad from the good. To investigate very Muslim seeking admittance to the US by subjecting them to the kind of comprehensive investigation that requires people to locate, verify, and interview known associates of the person may be the answer, but the cost of such a system will never be supported by those who hold the purse strings.

DWDavisRSL wrote on December 12, 2015, 12:20 PM

I'm not quite sure that I'm being influenced by spin when his own press release on his own campaign website states, "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." (New York, NY) December 7th, 2015. There isn't a whole lot to misinterpret there.

morilla wrote on December 12, 2015, 12:24 PM

Okay. I don't think he said or inferred that every Muslim is a terrorist; though I do see where media pundits are trying to claim that. Clearly, we don't want to allow terrorists in. Neither do we want to see a mass migration where we end up with similar problems to Europe in terms of an huge voting block with an agenda. So, if you don't like his plan or think it's workable, what's YOUR suggested alternative?

morilla wrote on December 12, 2015, 12:37 PM

You stated only the "Tea Party" (which isn't even a party) and "far right-wingers" without acknowledging that he's seeing support "across the board" for his proposals. You're saying that he's "making a deliberate choice to be offensive and rude;" yet, if you read what he's actually saying, unless you simply consider his plan to be 'offensive and rude,' it sounds as though he's proposing something straight out of the U.S. Code:

" ...Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation , and for such period as he shall deem necessary , suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate... "

So, do you find the U.S. Code 'offensive and rude?' Or, are you referencing something else, leaving readers to infer that he's being 'offensive and rude' with regard to his proposed moratorium?

You're decrying someone pointing out a certain and obvious 'hypocrisy' in the media and among some politicians who are criticizing Trump as " Hannityesque tactics of debate ;" but, that's not 'spin' or being 'influenced?'

Okay...???

DWDavisRSL wrote on December 12, 2015, 12:57 PM

I'm not so much against his plan as I am suspicious of the man himself, his motives, and his reason for running President. I did click to your other post and read it through. I am afraid I will not be able to replicate your thoroughness in replying to all your points, however, I did appreciate some of the legal information you provided re: immigration and Presidential power. As for his plan, like most overarching plans, I don't think it is workable. All a Jihadi has to do is claim that he is a Arabic or Persian Christian, have documents forged to support that, and the moratorium is defeated, unless it is expanded to include all Arabs, Persians, Indonesians, etc... regardless of religious affiliation. You see why I have my doubts about the effectiveness of the plan.

As to my suggestion of an alternative plan, I'm just a humble school teacher and would not presume to tell our government how to conduct its immigration policy. They have hundreds of people working for them far above my pay grade who are supposed to take care of that.

I agree something has to be done, but the victory in this case will come when we find a way to defeat the lies and propaganda of our enemy, not in handing our enemy grist for his hate mill.

morilla wrote on December 12, 2015, 1:16 PM

If the system (human intelligence gathering, et al.) is working the way it's supposed to and actually does (at times), then it's not quite as 'simple' as - " ...All a Jihadi has to do is claim...have documents forged to support that, and the moratorium is defeated. " This was specifically something addressed by an American Muslim and he claims we have sufficient contacts in that regard to verify/test such assertions. I'm not sure I completely agree with him; but, he makes a valid point in a general sense.

Many, many experts, including former and current Government employees, have made and continue to make the point that they already 'hate us.' Nothing we do or say is going to change that; regardless of Hillary Clinton claiming that we need to utilize more love and kindness, which will "trump" (ahem) the 'hate' espoused by many (ahem). (I'll leave you to look that one up.) They claim that, for lack of a better term, a more 'Old Testament' approach would be appropriate. Unfortunately, that's precisely the type of "apocalypse" ISIS is trying to create.

So, when you speak of defeating the "lies and propaganda," what you are speaking to is defeating an interpretation or denominational understanding of a certain religion.

Last Edited: December 12, 2015, 1:17 PM